rdp-udp protein seminar
DESCRIPTION
Adequate Supply of Protein is Crucial to the Performance of Dairy AnimalsTRANSCRIPT
Seminar on
Protein Degradability Concept of Protein
Evaluation in Ruminants.
By Mayank Tandon
Dairy Cattle Nutrition Division, NDRI, Karnal
email;
INTRODUCTION
India Ranks Ist in Milk Production 91 MT/ annum for 2004-05 (NDDB,2004)
Bovines in India Cattle 186 million Buffaloes 97 million (Livestock Census, 2003)
Increasing @ 1% annually.Shortage of 30-32 % of Feed
Shortage Exist both for Energy and Protein Feeds.
Good Quality Protein Feeds are Expensive Lower area under oil seed production Export of oilseed Adequate Supply of Protein is Crucial to the Performance of Dairy Animals. A Protein Deficiency/ Imbalance of Amino Acids (AA) have a Dramatic Effect on Growth Milk production And other functions (Walli et al., 2004)
CONCEPTUAL CHANGES IN PROTEIN SYSTEMS A. Digestible Crude Protein System(DCP) Starting one, Easy to use, Widely accepted & used till date
“The DCP content of feedstuffs is measure of the N x 6.25 that has apparently disappeared in the digestive tract.” (ARC, 1965; NRC, 1970)
B. Metabolizable Protein System (MP) In USA, (Burroughs, et al.,1971) “As the quantity of protein digested or absorbed in the post ruminal portion of the digestive trace of ruminants.”
Comparison of Metabolizable Protein (MP) system with NRC & ARC Digestible Protein ( DCP) systems.
AnimWt.,
Kg
NRC, 1970 ARC, 1965 Metabolizible protein (Burroughs, et al.,1971)
Required, gm
observed
gm
difference
R, gm Observed
D R, gm O Difference
150-200 355 453 -22% 348 453 -23% 486 468 +4%
200-250 448 471 -5% 383 471 -19% 469 478 -2%
213-418 555 476 +17% 447 476 -6% 461 444 +4%
213-472 519 638 -20% 512 638 -20% 542 584 -7%
224-451 604 565 +7% 435 565 -23% 433 470 -8%
C. Absorbed True Protein (AP) System
In America, very much similar to
Metabolizible Protein system.
D. Proteins Digestible in Intestine (PDI) System
In France, to replace DCP (Verite et al., 1979)
“It estimate the quantity of amino N x 6.25 absorbed
in the small intestine from the dietary proteins which
has escaped fermentation in the rumen and the
microbial protein arising from that fermentation.”
Comparison of PDI and DCP Requirements. (Verite et al., 1979)
Type of animal
Wt.
kg
Level of production
Requirements (g/d)
PDI DCP
Fattening
Young Bull 400
Dairy, 1.2 kg/d 635 645
Beef, 1.4 kg/d 720 740
Dairy cows
600
maintenance 395 360
Last month of pregnancy
600 600
Lact, 30 kgFCM 1895 2160
E. Digestible Protein in the Intestine System
The Dutch system; Very much similar to PDI system “Quantity of Protein Digested in the Intestine.”
F. Crude Protein flow at the Duodenum The German (Kaufmann,1979) N x 6.25 flow at the duodenum; provided by Microbial Protein + Escape Protein G. ADPLS system Apparently Digestible Protein Leaving Stomach In Australia
RDP and UDP System (Roy et al., 1977; ARC, 1980 & 1984; NRC, 1989) Ruminants have protein requirement at 2 levels I. The N needs of rumen microbes. II. The protein need of the Host. Dietary protein have 2 parts RDP & UDP RDP Rumen Degradable Protein, part of the feed protein which degraded in rumen
Protein Degrading Microbes
(Yokoyama and Johnson, 1988; Lockiuood et al., 1988; Asao et al ., 1993)
Enzymes for Protein Degradation in Rumen
Trypsin like proteinase, Cysteine proteinase, Serine proteinase Metallo proteinase, Exopeptidase, Aminopeptidase, Deaminase etc.
Bacteria Protozoa Fungi
Bacteroides amylophilus
Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens
Streptococcus bovis
Bacteroides ruminicola
Holotrics
Isotricha sp.
Dasytricha sp.
Niocallimastix frontalis
Piromsces sp.
Orpinomyces joyonii
UDP Undegradable Dietary Protein
“Which Escape(Bypass) the Rumen Fermentation gets digested in the SI to supply AA.” Later also called as Naturally Protected Proteins Its Depends Upon surface area available for microbial attack chemical nature of proteins physical consistency of proteins other dietary components passage rate from rumen
Determination of Protein Degradability In vivo, using flow rates (cannulated) In Situ Nylon Bag Technique (Mehrez and Orskov, 1977; Orskov and Mcdonald, 1979)
Limitation Bag size, Pore size, Sample size, Particle size, Method of washing, etc. In vitro single stage technique double stage technique (Tilley and Terry, 1963)
Percentage of UDP in some Common Feed and Fodder
( NRC, 1985; Dutta et al., 1997; Negi et al., 1989)Feed UDP % Feed UDP %
Maize (grain) 65 Blood meal 76 – 82
Barley 21( 11-27) Fish meal 71 – 80
Sorghum 52 Meat meal 53 – 76
Bajra 68 Brewers dried 53
Oat grain 14–20 Corn gluten 53
Wheat grain 20–36 Wheat bread 29
Cotton seed meal 41–50 Corn silage 27
Linseed meal 11–45 Rice straw 63
Ground nut meal 30 Wheat straw 45
Rapeseed meal 23 Para grass, fresh 52
Soybean meal 28 ( 15–45) Cow pea 32 – 45
Sunflower meal 24 Berseem 37 – 52
Subabul 51 – 70 Alfa-Alfa 28
Nutrient Requirement for Lactating Cow of 400 kg B.Wt. Producing Milk with 4% Fat (NRC, 1989)
Milk Yield, kg
(4%fat)
ME
(MJ/d)
CP
(g/d)
CP provided by Microbes
(8.34xME, (MJ/d))
UDP required
(CP required – RDP)
0 50.44 318 420.66 Nil
1 55.65 408 464.12 Nil
2 60.86 498 507.57 Nil
3 66.07 588 551.02 36.98
4 71.27 678 594.47 83.61
5 76.48 768 637.84 130.16
6 81.7 858 681.37 176.63
7 86.91 948 724.82 223.18
8 92.12 1038 768.27 269.73
9 97.12 1128 811.72 316.28
10 102.54 1218 855.17 362.83
In general,
Requirement for RDP = 60-65% of CP
Requirement for UDP = 35-40% of CP
( NRC, 1989)
Various Treatments to Increase UDP Content in the Feed Stuffs.
Treatments Method Reference Comment
Heat 125-1500 C
For 30-45 min
Chalmers et al., 1954 Bartly & Deyoe,1975
Much of work
Under/ over protection
HCHO 1-1.2 g HCHO/ 100g CP
Ferguson et al., 1967
Chatterjee & Walli, 1997
Most studied
Cost effective and widely accepted; likely to be phase out
Esophageal
Groove Closer
Normal function in young; for liquid Proteins;
Salts of Na, Cu, Ag & Zn can effect
Orskov & Fraser, 1969
Orskov et al., 1970
Not Practicable
Cont…….
Post Ruminal Infusion (fistula)
Surgically Fitted
……..
…….. Only for Research,
Not Practicable
Encapsulation
of proteins
Gelatin capsules
Tristearin coat etc.
Strom & Orskove, 1984
For good BV proteins & AA; Methionin & Lysine, cost
Amino Acid
Analogs
Structural altering of AA,
Methionin hydroxy
N-acetyl-Dl-Methionin
DL-Homocysteine
DL-Homocysteine thiolactone-HCL, etc.
Amos et al., 1974
For Individual AA
Availability at SI
Cost
Feed Processing
Grinding, Pelleting, etc. (Heat)
Disruptution of protein matrix
……
…….
Can either Increase or Decrease UDP
Cont…
Ruminal Protease Activity
Antibiotics can be used Hogan & weston, 1969
Banned, adverse effect on fibre degradability,
Metal AA
Complex
Zn-Methionin,
Zn-Lysine, Cu-Lysine
Mn-Methionin
Fe-Methionin
Dass, 2003 For individual AA;
Better
Plant Secondary compounds
Lignin, Tannin, Terpeniods, Volatile essential oils, Alkaloids etc.
……
……
Have potential to be used;
Toxic effect
Retention time in Rumen
Less stay less egradation, Feed intake, specific gravity, partical size, concentrate : roughage, salt, water, tempt.
….
.. ….
Development of CNCPS system
AA Requirements Addressed (O'Connor et al., 1993)
Conceptual Improvement over RDP/UDP system
AA available by Microbial Protein + UDP
Feed Proteins have 3 Fractions (Chalupa & Sniffen, 1996) A ( Non Protein N) B (True Protein) C (Bound protein)
B is further Fractionated B1 (Readily Degraded in Rumen) B2 (Slowly Degraded in Rumen) B3( Hardly Degrade in Rumen )
Composition, Ruminal Degradation and Intestinal Digestion of Protein Fractions as per CNCPS (Chalupa & Sniffen, 1996)
Fraction Composition Rumen
Degradability %
Intestinal Digestibility %
A NH3, NO2, AA & Peptides Instantaneous Not reach
B1 Globulines, some Albumins Highly degradable 100
B2 Most Albumins, Glutelins 5-10 100
B3 Prolamins, denaturated &extended Proteins
0.1-1.5 80
C N bound to lignin,Mmillard Proteins
Zero Zero
Chemical Composition
Full Fraction
PBSN Phosphate Buffer Soluble N
A + B1
PBIN Phosphate Buffer Insoluble N
100 - PBSN
NDIN Neutral Detergent Insoluble N
…..
ADIN Acid Detergent Insoluble N
C
PBIN - NDIN …… B2
NDIN – ADIN …….. B3
Composition According to Borate-phosphate Buffer as per CNCPS, (Chalupa & Sniffen, 1996)
Ingredients CP PD
%
PBSN (A+B1)
PBIN-NDIN (B2)
ADIN-NDIN (B3)
ADIN
( C)
Mustard Cake 331.8 85.6 76.2 10.5 9.9 3.2
Ground nut Cake
731.9 84.6 74.1 5.3 15.3 5.1
Barley 102.5 88.3 51.3 12.1 32.3 4.1
Wheat Bran 135.6 86.2 46,5 30.1 30.3 3.0
Wheat 89.4 85.3 37.8 30.4 27.5 4.1
Protein fraction of some feeds Asper CNCPS(Mondal & Walli, 2003)
Ingredients CP
G/kg
PD
%
PBSN (A+B1)
PBIN-NDIN (B2)
ADIN-NDIN (B3)
ADIN
( C)
Deoiled Coconut Cake
255.0 83.2 43.8 12.9 38.1 5.0
Sunflower Meal 363.1 67.6 37.7 25.3 31.1 5.8
Soybean Meal 548.1 80.2 41.6 15.9 35.7 6.7
Fish Meal 490.6 81.0 27.8 24.3 44.3 3.5
Maize Grain 125.6 76.5 23.7 57.5 14.7 3.9
Cotton Seed Cake 291.9 78.5 32.1 20.0 41.4 6.3
Maize Gluten Meal
703.1 79.2 11.6 33.4 46.1 8.7
Conti…..
INDIAN CONTEXT
Indian Dairy cattle & Buffalo have
Lower Basel Metabolic rates then Temperate
Lower maintain requirements
Low producing animals.
NRC & ARC standards; for Animals raised;
Temperate Condition with High Quality Feeds.
Indian ---Tropical--- Low Producing---Poor Quality Feed
In India DCP & TDN System is More Popular
Simple, & Values are Available
Maintenance Requirements of Adult Cattle & Buffaloes ( ICAR, 2002)
Bt. Wt.
(kg)
DCP
(g)
TDN
(kg)
ME
(Mcal)
200 150 1.7 6.0
300 200 2.4 8.4
400 250 3.0 10.8
500 300 3.7 13.2
Requirements of Milch Animals Over and Above the Maintains Allowance ( per kg or liter of Milk)
(ICAR, 2002)
% Fat in Milk DCP (g) TDN ( kg) ME (M cal)
3 40 0.27 0.97
4 45 0.315 1.13
5 51 0.370 1.28
6 57 0.410 1.36
7 63 0.460 1.54
8 69 0.510 1.80
9 75 0.550 2.06
10 81 0.600 2.16
In last Decade,
Lots of work has been done on RDP/UDP
Including Various Treatment to Increase UDP Values
Feed Industry has Adopted Heat & HCHO Treatment
Recently Work is going on CNCPS system
Protein degradability Concept
At Present Most in Use
DCP; RDP/UDP & CNCPS
RDP/ UDP system is Mostly Followed World Wide ( NRC, 1989)
Response of Dairy Animals to RDP/UDP System Feeding
Or
Work Done by Various Scientist on Degradability Concept
Effects of RDP on ruminal fermentation
pH: no change or decrease
Ammonia : reduces
Total free AA: reduces
TVFA/ IVFA : no change (Hristov et al., 2004)
Effect of feeding concentrate mixtures with Varying levels of RDP to UDP on the yield and composition of milk in crossbred cows ( Kabande & Thomas, 1999)
GNC, Gingelly C, CSC, Coconut C, Maize, Wheat Bran, MM, Salt; Grass were Fed Adlib
Particular Concentrate Mixtures
A B C
Animals 6 6 6
RDP : UDP 37 : 63 52 : 48 70 : 30
Milk yield (kg/d) 10.1 7.18 6.32
Fat ( %) 4.68 4.63 4.64
Protein ( %) 3.63 3.48 3.46
Total solids ( %) 13.55 13.46 13.41
Effect of graded level of UDP feeding on milk Yield and composition (Chaturvedi & Walli, 2001)
aAttributes Diets T1 T2 T3
Cows 5 5 5
RDP : UDP 71 : 29 58 : 42 44 : 56
DMI ( kg/d) 11.54 10.66 11.18
Milk Yield ( kg/d) 9.81 9.87 10.09
4%, FCM (kg/d) 9.68 9.81 10.47
Fat (% ) 3.93 4.01 4.27
Protein ( %) 3.48 3.5 3.57
SNF ( %) 8.91 8.96 8.99
Total Solids ( %) 12.83 12.96 13.19
Wt. 460 kg; Maize fodder & wheat straw Barley,GNC, CSC, MGM, WB, MM, Salt
Performance of milk yielding cows on different degradable diets (Aharoni et al., 1993)
Parameters H D L D
Cows, no. 40 45
CP (%) TMR 16.7 16.9
CP degradability ( %) 69 64
Initial Wt (kg) 546 564
BW change ( kg/d) 0.178 0.146
Milk Yield ( kg/d) 31.8 33.4
Protein ( %) 3.04 3.06
Fat (%) 3.32 3.66
Effect of High & Low RUP Diets on Milk Yield & Composition in Dairy Cows ( Dunlap et al., 2000)
Attributes Dietary Treatments
High RUP Low RUP
Cows , no. 30 30
CP % of Diet 16 16
RUP ( % of CP) 35.4 28.6
DMI (kg/d) 21.3 21.4
Milk yield kg/d 32.6 32.2
3.5 % FCM (kg/d) 33.9 33.8
Fat ( %) 4.31 4.39
Protein ( %) 3.35 3.34
Milk yield, fat & protein % on feeding 1 kg bypassprotein supplement ( Garg et al., 2002)
Parameters Control Experiment
Cows, No 8 8
Milk yield, kg 14.1 15.2
Fat, % 4.4 4.6
Protein, % 3.2 3.5
Maize Fodder, Paddy Straw & Oat Silage1 kg procted ( HCHO) Sunflower Meal,
CP 28%, UDP 74% of CP
Nutritional facts for RDP/UDP
Good Utilization of Microbial Protein Synthesis
Additional Supply of AA/EAA at SI
Low Ammonia Production in Rumen
Low Urea Synthesis in Liver
Energy Savings
Excess AA go for Gluconeogenesis
Some Researchers have Reported Increased Milk Productions when Fed Higher Levels of UDP while others have not Observed any Significant Increase in Milk Yield (Sampath et al., 2003)
Naturally Protected Protein are often reported to have Methionine & Lysine as Limiting A A
Indian condition really need UDP ( Bypass proteins) ?!
Maintenance Low producing Animals
Mid Producer – Naturally Protected High producing – treatments
Methionine & Lysine – Microbial Protein (Strom & Orskove, 1989) - Naturally protected
Better Utilization of Protein Resources
Total Protein Available from Concentrate in India
is estimated to be around 8.5-9 million tones
Which can Support production of only 0.45 million
tonnes of Milk Proteins by the present mode of its
Utilization
Studies showed that when Protein Degradation in Rumen
is controlled and it is made to Bypass, the same can
support the production of 1.72 million of Milk Proteins
( Sharma, K. 2003)
Conclusion
Increases DMI Increase in milk production ( 10-15%) Increase in B. W. Gain EAA reach to SI Microbial Protein Synthesis; is Energy dependent Process Use of NPN should be Optimized
RDP/ UDP ratio should be Optimized